Given that the apostles all died horrible deaths in the name of their faith...

Debunked already.

>People don't willingly die for a lie they made up.
Joseph Smith did.

And we don't really know that all of them died horrible deaths. James's death is the only one even the Bible describes.

Suicide bombers experience heavy indoctrination and conditioning often beginning when they were children:

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121014102539659862.html

The early church did not posses the institutional organization to inflict this kind of conditioning on the apostles so this comparison holds no water. The apostles chose to die because they believed what they had seen.

Do we have evidence that any of the apostles actually in their own words talked about the resurrection?

>The Apostles willingly martyred themselves for something they personally witnessed
they may have indeed witnessed something, but there's no reason that what they witnessed couldn't simply be a vision or delusion

Heaven's Gate.

Also victims of systemic indoctrination.

>ITT
>religious weirdo tries to prove that his religious weirdos where more sane than other peoples religious weirdos.

exactly what level of organization do you need to indoctrinate someone? was the early church's organization more simple than say jonestown or heaven's gate?

Now explain the Christians who have converted to Pisslam and died as suicide bombers.

Joseph Smith got killed trying to flee a mob.

Yes, read their epistles.

12 men all seeing the same exact thing and being convinced to the point of enduring horrible deaths for it? Are you really willing to bet on it just being a "delusion"?

>ITT
>Atheists getting BTFO by historical facts

The only writings we have that are fairly sure to be by an Apostle is the Gospel of Thomas, and that's just a collection of sayings of Jesus, it has no narrative and doesn't mention his death, let alone his resurrection.

>12 men all seeing the same exact thing and being convinced to the point of enduring horrible deaths for it? Are you really willing to bet on it just being a "delusion"?
yes. why not? it's pretty damn common.

I don't know, the only point I'm trying to make is that suicide bombers experienced a level of indoctrination that the apostles did not.

Demonic influence obviously.

I'm sure you can cite examples.

jonestown, heaven's gate, etc. already mentioned.

None of those are comparable.

>the only explanation for a religious belief is that it was caused by witnessing a real supernatural event

They believed it. That's all it boils down to anyway.
I believe it, fuck you. That's faith.

What sources are there about these apostles and the events surrounding their deaths beyond the bible?

the head of the heaven's gate cult was definitely sincerely deluded by his own claimed divinity

so you're betting on the idea that only once in history have twelve whole people thought they saw the same magical thing? that's your strategy?

Which only took about 20 years, no influence outside the group itself, and no institutional power. Nothing Early Christianity couldn't do itself.

It's sad that atheists are incapable of believing people who believe differently than they do are anything other than insane. Even the most zealous and intolerant Christian of yore didn't believe pagans were insane, just misled by demons, which is far more charitable when you think about it.

It figures though, atheism always was "Stop liking what I don't like!" The Religion. A perfect cult for autists.

>muh special pleading

You "people" really are the dumbest, most dishonest, least respectable scum ever to crawl out of a dog's cunt.

>suicide bombers experienced a level of indoctrination that the apostles did not
that argument is gonna depend on the claim that just growing up in a certain religious climate can't have comparable effects

>The only explanation for a religious belief is those that hold it are mentally defective.

>People will let themselves be tortured and killed over something they know full well is a lie because they made it up

Josephus, early church accounts.

Yup, because no other incidents were put to the test and proven to be true.

See above, name one other time it has happened and was not put to the test and found false.

Atheist hypocrisy at its finest.

>atheists are incapable of believing people who believe differently than they do are anything other than insane
that's a tendency of all ignorant arrogant people and ideologues, not just atheists and not all atheists
but arguably nobody ITT has accused religious people of being insane
somebody used the word "delusion" which could just mean something like "strongly held false belief"

>Josephus, early church accounts.
Specifics, please. At least give me the works they're supposedly mentioned in.

about-jesus.org/martyrs.htm

>somebody used the word "delusion" which could just mean something like "strongly held false belief"
i think that's me. I was refering specifically to visions, etc. however I didn't mean that that means they were scizophrenic. perfectly normal people can have such experiences even without drugs. in Roman times it was quite common for both pagans and christians to fast in order to make these experiences more likely to happen.

>something they know full well is a lie
so those are the two options, huh? either a true belief caused by being a firsthand witness to a real supernatural event, or a fully conscious lie?

>Yup, because no other incidents were put to the test and proven to be true.
ok so the argument is now no longer that 12 people believed they saw the same supernatural event
the argument is that the incident was "put to the test" and "proven to be true"
so what was the test, who performed it, what proof resulted and how?

The martyrdom traditions of the Apostles are late and legendary and have no identifiable foundation in genuine history. We do not have information on how any of the original followers of Jesus died, beyond Josephus mentioning that his brother James was executed by the Romans. We don't see these martyrdom naratives show up until the 2nd and 3rd centuries with the writings of Tertullian and Origen. In fact, beyond references to Peter in Paul's nonpseudipigraphical letters and the aforementioned execution of James they all drop off the historical map entirely after Jesus' crucifixion.
.

you believe that the only way to come to a powerful false belief is to be mentally defective?

>so those are the two options, huh?

Yup. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie. So either the apostles lied, or what they claimed was true.

No, it is not possible that they were all fooled into meeting the resurrected Jesus.

>so what was the test, who performed it, what proof resulted and how?

Every martyrdom
The people apostles
Proof was that they believed in what they claimed because they were willing to die for it

>Yup. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie.
you do realize that it's possible to believe something and for it not to be true, right? surely you've gone to school before and taken a test, only to get a question wrong. were you lying?

The difference being it's really fucking hard to believe multiple people could have the "delusion" of having met with and talked to a physically resurrected person and be willing to die rather than recant.

>The apostles were deluded

Right, so Jesus' identical twin decided to prank them and convince them he rose from the dead.

>Yup.
how do you know?

Read the rest of the sentence.

>being this autistic

knowing about 20th century cults, not really at all. not all of them could simply be boiled down to someone tricking and purposefully indoctrinating others, like heaven's gate

Nothing in the 20th century involved interacting with a physically resurrected person.

(No, someone claiming to be the "reincarnation" of whoever doesn't count)

There is simply no comparison.

btw your epistemic principles here are going to force you to believe in the existence of every single mythical, supernatural, and paranormal being and phenomenon that over 11 people have sincerely believed they have observed around the same time
get ready to accept most religions, cults, mythologies, and folklores in world history

Nope. Because none of them have been tested in the same way and proven to be true.

the rest of the sentence has nothing to do with proving that those are the only two options

>Batholomew
The article references a non-existent document called "Martyrdom of Bartholomew." No such document exists, and a cursory Google search yields no extra-biblical documents concerning an apostle named Bartholomew. The article does not provide the alleged document.
>James son of Alphaeus
The article cites a boot written in the 16th century.
>Andrew
The article just has a nebulous reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.
>Peter, Judas, John
The article doesn't even reference anything. It just makes unsubstantiated claims.
>Jesus
Why is he here?
>Thomas
It just cites that same book written in the 16th century.
>James son of Zebedee
It just cites the bible.
>Philip, Matthew, Thaddeus (Jude), Simon
The 16th century book again.

I asked for extra-biblical sources for the supposed martyrdoms of these supposed apostles, you gave me a heap of garbage.

It's clear that those are the only options.

right, so you don't actually care about this "roughly simultaneous 12-person sincere belief in having observed a miracle" argument
what you care about is this so-called test & proof
but when asked what that consists in, you repeat the "sincere belief" argument ()

how do you figure

Both are important.

The high unlikelihood of 12 people holding the sincere belief in HAVING MET AND INTERACTED WITH A RESURRECTED PERSON, and the test of whether it was true by them being willing to die for it.

No other phenomena or miracle compares to meeting a resurrected person.

So unless you're postulating that someone dressed up like Jesus and tricked the apostles who knew him dearly, you are calling them liars, which is clearly not the case since liars don't willingly die for their lies.

See above.

I'm not here to do your research for you, I gave you Josephus who talks about James' martyrdom.

Do the rest your self.

Josephus is incredibly shaky and unclear, and very possibly an interpolation or scribal error. There isn't even any evidence within the text that he was an apostle. Also, you're making the claim that the supposed apostles were martyred specifically for claiming the resurrection of Jesus, so the onus is on you to provide evidence. The thing is, there is no evidence. There's the bible, which is not a historical document and I don't think it even deals with the supposed martyrdoms of the supposed apostles in any real detail.

Your argument is garbage, and the fact that you've become indignant about having to support your own claims with historical documentation tells me and every discerning reader of this thread that you can't do it

There is evidence, not my fault that you refuse to do your research.

You need to know your shit like I do before you get to call anyone's argument garbage.

If you know your shit, it should be trivial for you to cough up sources. It's not my job to research every retarded claim some faggot on Veeky Forums makes. You're trying to prove your claim, that means you need to produce the goods.

Check the early mormon leaders Broseph Smith

I'm not responsible for educating you, go read a book you simpleton.

>Both are important.
but what i'm saying is that you have only given one argument, which is this

1. if 12 people sincerely believe they saw the same magical event around the same time, the magical event really happened
2. if you die for your belief, it's sincere
3. the 12 apostles died for their belief
4. so 12 people had that sincere belief
5. so the magical event really happened

this is the argument that i said will force you to believe in basically all magical things, since many have died for those beliefs too, and anyway dying isn't the only evidence of sincerity (so premises 2-3 aren't necessary in every variation)
your response was that in all those other cases, this argument may apply, but in the case of jesus there is also a test and a proof in addition to it
but that test and proof turns out to be the same argument repeated again
and even if it was a different argument, then that other argument would be the one you were actually relying on instead of the sincere belief argument
so either way you've played yourself and also you still haven't given any reason to think supernatural claims must be either true observation reports or conscious lies

Dude, you're embarrassing yourself. I'd tell you to quit while you're ahead, but you're so far behind the curb, you might as well just go home.

Except there is no other incident proven like this one, meaning I don't have to believe anything else.

I see you've given up. Nice failure to address the question, I'll take that as your concession.

youtu.be/VlBJpObJhDU

((())))

>Except there is no other incident proven like this one, meaning I don't have to believe anything else.
okay, so you are a retard
i just had to be sure
i laid out the whole thing completely explicitly, and all you had to say was a lackluster repeat of something that was explicitly addressed in the post you responded to
fucking moron
kys
i'm out

Another concession, thanks for playing.

Better luck next time.

You don't win the argument by slinging accusations of ignorance or slyly insinuating laziness in lieu of providing evidence for your own position, or by refusing to actually engage the opponent's argument.

Oh, I thought you were leaving?

Are you going to actually refute my argument or keep demanding other people spoonfeed you?

>counting is hard, must be the same guy coming back
But then again, we are talking about a christfag here, who probably asserts that there are no contradictions between the OT and the NT.

And, while new to the thread, it's easy enough to refute your argument. If mere belief is proof of the veracity of the thing believed, then Hale-Bopp really did have a space ship trailing after it and by killing yourself at the right time, your soul could embark on that spaceship. Also, the earth is going to be destroyed any day now.

Forgot the pic

>Oh, I thought you were leaving?
Never said I was leaving. I'm not >Are you going to actually refute my argument or keep demanding other people spoonfeed you?
I already refuted your argument by declaring that the claims your entire argument is based on were baseless and you had no evidence to support them. You responded by making further nebulous and baseless claims that the evidence "totally exists", then handwaving your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims, and finally attacking me personally.

Yeah, nothing you said counters it.

It's not mere belief, it is belief tested under the most brutal circumstances by direct witnesses, not indoctrinated zombies.

And there are no contradictions, deal with it.

You have refuted nothing.

Keep trying.

>It's not mere belief, it is belief tested under the most brutal circumstances by direct witnesses,
So, exactly like the Heaven's Gate community, which personally "witnessed" the claims that the comet held a spaceship that could carry souls, and went out of their way to shed their mortal bodies in preparation.

>not indoctrinated zombies.
Ooh, a small cult, hiding away from mainstream society. Totally not indoctrinating, and totally not like how the early Christians were.

>And there are no contradictions, deal with it.
How many generations were there between David and Jechoniah/Jechonias? Why do Matthew and Chronicles have different numbers?

Welp. Guess that's it, pack it in boys Christianity is over.

>So, exactly like the Heaven's Gate community, which personally "witnessed" the claims that the comet held a spaceship that could carry souls, and went out of their way to shed their mortal bodies in preparation.

"Witnessing" a claim is not the same as MEETING A RESURRECTED PERSON.

>"Witnessing" a claim is not the same as MEETING A RESURRECTED PERSON.
Can you actually address my argument instead of making a strawman about it?

What, by the way, is the difference between supposedly meeting a resurrected person, and the supposed witnessing of miraculous powers of the "UFO two"?

Your "question" is based on a nonsensical comparison.

There is a major difference between seeing someone die, then meeting them again days later and hanging out for days and witnessing "powers" of two "beings" you aren't seeing and interacting with.

>Your "question" is based on a nonsensical comparison.
No it isn't. In both cases, you have a group numbering in the double digits claiming to see an obvious suspension of the laws which most of the rest of us live by. Why is the comparison nonsense?

>and witnessing "powers" of two "beings" you aren't seeing and interacting with.
The UFO duo was Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles, who were very real, flesh and blood people, whose followers claimed did very real, in your face miracles.

Buddhist monks light themselves on fire

Being fooled by party tricks isn't the same as seeing someone die and come back to life.

What makes you think they were party tricks? Why is resurrection such an important miracle, but not other miracles?

As a side point, you haven't gotten back to me about that number of generations things. Are you conceding that there's discrepancies between books in the bible, or are you still trying to think up an answer?

Magic tricks performed by con artists vs someone verifiably dying and coming back to life? You tell me how there couldn't be a bigger difference.

>As a side point, you haven't gotten back to me about that number of generations things.

It was answered.

>Magic tricks performed by con artists vs someone verifiably dying and coming back to life? You tell me how there couldn't be a bigger difference.
What makes you think they're magic tricks? Why are you so certain YOUR group's miracles are legit but other groups arent'?

>It was answered.
Where?

So does this mean ISIS suicide bombers also follow a true religion?

Because none of those people came back from the dead, meaning they weren't real miracles at all most likely.

>Where?

contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=1179

>fake death
>show up in town 3 days later
>2000 years later autistic retards shill for you on anonymous imageboards

&Humanities was a mistake, and it's all Christianity's fault.

>Because none of those people came back from the dead, meaning they weren't real miracles at all most likely.
That says nothing about the possibility of their miracles being legit. Besides which, do you say the same things about Alvaro Garza Jr? Kelvin Santos? Li Xiufeng? Lyudmila Steblitskaya? Or are they all faking it too?

>Incredibly unconvincing apologetics.
You might think that a wicked king isn't a good guy, but he's still a biological impact, and it throws your "14 generations" claim all out of the water. "I wasn't expecting people to take what I deliberately said seriously" is pathetic, even for a Christcuck.

>Get crucified
>Get stabbed
>Somehow live for three days with grievous wounds

Nah

None were comparable.

>You might think that a wicked king isn't a good guy, but he's still a biological impact, and it throws your "14 generations" claim all out of the water.

Except it doesn't and you're missing the point.

>None were comparable.
Of course they were. You have people being "dead" and in a morgue for the same three days and getting back up.

>Except it doesn't and you're missing the point.
Yes, it does. Your apologetic literally makes the claim that Matthew excluded Ahaziah, Joas, Amaziah, as punishment for Joram killing his brothers. It also makes the bizarre, unsubstantiated claim that there was a "Temple Archives" that kept track of this shit. And then, in the crowning of failure, it says

> Maybe a comparable punishment was laid on the royal family of David by the priests right after Joram's murders.
I.E., we actually have no support for this idea at all, but we hope you'll believe it because we've run out of ways to reconcile the unreconcilable.

By the way, the temple that was around back then burnt to the ground and had all of its stuff either removed or stolen, so I don't know why anyone would be drawing from a list that they supposedly had back then anyway.